If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Will guilty verdict in Canadian 'honor killing' trial be a turning point for justice?
By Phyllis Chesler

Published January 29, 2012
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet On January 29, after a ten-week trial and fifteen hours of deliberations, a seven woman, five man jury returned with a verdict of guilty to first degree murder for all three Afghan-Canadians who were charged in the pre-meditated murder of four female members of the polygamous Shafia family.

The convicted are each facing 25 years without parole.

Mohammed Shafia, 58, Tooba Yahya, 42 (his second wife), and Hamed, 21, their son, were found guilty of conspiring to and of having murdered Mohammed’s first wife, Rona Mohammed Amir, 50, and Tooba Yahya’s three daughters, Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, because they refused to wear hijab, wore Western, sometimes “sexy” clothing, dared to have boyfriends, and, in their father’s words, “dishonored” and “betrayed” both “their family and Islam.”

On June 30, 2009, when the bodies of the dead girls and woman were discovered in the family's Nissan in the Rideau Canal, the accused wept uncontrollably and went through an exaggerated public display of mourning.

However, privately, post-massacre, the police recovered wiretaps of Mohammed Shafia saying that his daughters had “hurt (him)..and betrayed…and violated us immensely. God curse their generation, they were filthy and rotten children. To hell with them and their boyfriends…May the devil shit on their graves.”

On wiretap, Mohammed said that if he had it to do over again he would. His self-pity, self-righteousness, and cruelty are typical of the kinds of men who commit such murders.

The first known honor killing in the United States took place in 1989 in St. Louis, Missouri and was perpetrated by a father, Zein Isa, an Abu Nidal terrorist, and his wife, who together stabbed their 16-year-old daughter, Palestina (Tina) Isa 13 times as she cried out for mercy.

The FBI had wire-tapped Isa's phone for terrorism-related reasons; therefore, the jury was able to hear the actual murder.

Zein was unrepentant. He viewed himself as the injured party, he said that Tina had attacked him;he was only defending himself and his honor.

Palestina’s crimes including having a friend, (not a boyfriend), who was both African-American and male, refusing to travel to provide her father with “cover,” perhaps for being too academically“bright,” and for having begged her teachers and a school counselor to help her escape her savage beatings and punishments at home.

Unfortunately, the social worker who visited the home agreed with Zein that a father needs to exert a strong hand against a potentially willful or wayward daughter.

Afghan-Canadian and first wife, Rona Amir’s crime, in addition to her infertility, was that she supported Tooba Yahya’s three daughters in their desire to assimilate and westernize.

Like Palestina Isa, Geeti, the youngest, had told her teachers that she wanted to be placed in foster care.

The atmosphere in her household was filled with terrible and unceasing tensions: paternal demands that his daughters behave as if they were still living in Afghanistan (or in the Muslim world), and not in Canada; daily physical, psychological, and verbal battering; continuous rivalries between the two wives; a brother whose job it was to stalk and monitor his sisters’ behaviors.

Such behavior is typical, not unusual, among some immigrants who may be living in the West but whose hearts and minds remain in the East.

I found precisely these patterns in two studies that I published about honor killing in Middle East Quarterly in 2009 and 2010.

Western-style domestic violence and even domestically violent femicide is not the same as an honor killing.

For example, Westerners rarely kill their young daughters nor do Western families of origin conspire or collaborate in such murders. While Sikhs, and Hindus, (mainly in India), do commit honor killings, the majority of such murders in the West (91%) are Muslim-on-Muslim crimes.

The high-profile Shafia case may be a watershed decision in terms of Canada’s long standing Multiculturalism Policy which was passed in 1971 under Prime Minister Trudeau and legally enshrined in 1988 as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

According to Dr. Salim Mansur, a Muslim Canadian professor and author, such policies are ultimately “racist.” They keep immigrants confined to their “group” and do not encourage members to become “individuals” and “citizens” of a modern liberal democracy.

Although some have called for a special “honor killing” law, it is important to note that the Shafias were tried and convicted under existing Canadian law. They were not tried for committing a culturally approved “honor killing,” but for having conspired to commit a cold-blooded and pre-planned murder on Canadian soil.

So, too, were Muslim-Canadian Aqsa Parvez’s father, Mohammed, and her brother, Waqas, who were tried and convicted for murdering the 16-year-old girl because she refused to wear the hijab and other traditional clothing.

Her mother, who was not tried, lured her daughter home from a shelter for battered women to her death.

After the Shafia jury was individually polled, (it was a unanimous decision and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming), the Justice, Robert Maranger said “It is hard to imagine a more heinous crime, a cold-blooded and shameful crime, (committed because of) a sick notion about honor that has no place in this society.”

And in a statement following the verdict, Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson called honor killings a practice that is "barbaric and unacceptable in Canada....This government is committed to protecting women and other vulnerable persons from all forms of violence and to hold perpetrators accountable for their acts."

Defense lawyer David Crowe has vowed to appeal.

The accused continue to insist they are innocent.

I hope that Canadian and North American Muslim associations and experts will welcome this decision in which three murdered Muslim girls and one murdered Muslim woman were considered important enough to merit a long and expensive trial in the search for justice.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D. is the author of thirteen books, including "Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman" and "The New Anti-Semitism." She may be reached at her website www.phyllis-chesler.com

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

Right. They mentioned it. Sorry they didn't call for genocide in the piece

Nice straw man there, Dorothy. The FOXNews editorial didn't call for genocide, and neither am I. Providing the motive for the murders isn't a call for genocide, although the casual comparison demonstrates the PC mindset which permeates the NPR piece. The FOX piece provided information which was critical to the crime, and which the NPR reporter wouldn't have touched with a ten-foot pole (Ooops! Make that ten-foot person-of-Polish-descent! Got to be PC) precisely because she was more concerned with ficticious backlashes against Muslims than she was with reporting the facts. From the NPR and AP pieces, you could get the impression that any girl growing up in a "traditional" household would be at risk for murder, that traditional Catholics, Jews, or other denominations are just as likely to commit these kinds of crimes, and that any presumption that the overwhelming preponderance of honor killings occur in Islamic households might contribute to a vaguely defined backlash (as in, greater scrutiny by social services when a daughter begs to be removed from a violent home). The FOX piece explained that the father's demand that they wear the hijab, not wear Western clothes or have boyfriends, and claims that the girls had “dishonored” and “betrayed” both “their family and Islam" are the motives for the murder. This was a parent who would not allow his daughters to assimilate to the country that they had immigrated to. Don't you think that people need to know that a significant percentage of Muslim immigrants violently resist assimilation? We're repeatedly told about the impact of these killings on the Muslim communities (when they bother to mention religion at all), but the impact on the victims is downplayed and the impact on the wider communities that are being colonized is ignored. That is the PC mindset that the OP addresses, and which you demonstrate brilliantly.

You tried to hang an AP piece on NPR. You were called on it. Get over it.

As far as some Fox propaganda piece, I don't give a shit. They are a dime a dozen all over the Internet. Hell, there are probably two better written ones on the front page of this very website.

Nice straw man there, Dorothy.

Not a straw man, Toto. Sarcasm. You get your panties in a twist every time something is written about Muslims that does not condemn the religion. Even Americans. I don't know if it is tribal or not but it is definitely your unreasoning bias.

You tried to hang an AP piece on NPR. You were called on it. Get over it.

Uh, no. You brought up the NPR piece, claiming that they had mentioned the religion. I provided the story that they ran, which was the AP story, which was the topic of the OP, and their follow up, in which Islam was mentioned only in the context of trying to spin the story so that nobody would associate Islamic honor killings with Islam. You were wrong, repeatedly. Admit it.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

As far as some Fox propaganda piece, I don't give a shit. They are a dime a dozen all over the Internet. Hell, there are probably two better written ones on the front page of this very website.

You claimed that Fox was deliberately omitting references to Islam the same way that NPR was. I provided their follow up which proved that they were not. You were wrong again.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

Not a straw man, Toto. Sarcasm. You get your panties in a twist every time something is written about Muslims that does not condemn the religion. Even Americans. I don't know if it is tribal or not but it is definitely your unreasoning bias.

Now post something about how awful Muslims are.

No, I object to our media whitewashing Islam and ignoring the intentions of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that have made great progress in their stated goal of infiltrating, colonizing and conquering the west. It is you who gets his panties in a bunch every time I point this out, which is why you have to equate it with calls to genocide.

Uh, no. You brought up the NPR piece, claiming that they had mentioned the religion.

And they did.

I provided the story that they ran, which was the AP story, which was the topic of the OP, and their follow up, in which Islam was mentioned only in the context of trying to spin the story so that nobody would associate Islamic honor killings with Islam. You were wrong, repeatedly. Admit it.

Just declare victory and move on. It is all you do when confronted with a different opinion (not to mention facts that conflict with your mirrored box).

You claimed that Fox was deliberately omitting references to Islam the same way that NPR was. I provided their follow up which proved that they were not. You were wrong again.

Good Lord, you contradict yourself. You claim NPR PCed out on us by running the AP story and when I point out that FoxNews ran the same story, you find some propaganda piece to prove they did not PC out like NPR by running the SAME FUCKING STORY.

Christ!

No, I object to our media whitewashing Islam and ignoring the intentions of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that have made great progress in their stated goal of infiltrating, colonizing and conquering the west. It is you who gets his panties in a bunch every time I point this out, which is why you have to equate it with calls to genocide.

Be ever vigilante ... er .... I mean vigilant. Never know when that immigrant Somali girl down the street in the ḥijāb is going to take away your freedom to wear whatever head gear you choose.

Yes, but that wasn't the one that you linked to. And the one that I found only mentioned the religion in order to whitewash it.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

Just declare victory and move on. It is all you do when confronted with a different opinion (not to mention facts that conflict with your mirrored box).

What facts? Seriously! Cite one fact that you've presented that undermines the OP.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

Good Lord, you contradict yourself. You claim NPR PCed out on us by running the AP story and when I point out that FoxNews ran the same story, you find some propaganda piece to prove they did not PC out like NPR by running the SAME FUCKING STORY.

Christ!

Fox didn't PC out. They ran the story, then followed up with their own reporting, which provided greater detail, and included the story points that AP was too PC to run. NPR's follow up compounded the AP story by using it as a springboard to preach against any scrutiny of Islam.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

Be ever vigilante ... er .... I mean vigilant. Never know when that immigrant Somali girl down the street in the ḥijāb is going to take away your freedom to wear whatever head gear you choose.

it occurred to you that the immigrant Somali girl in the hijab may not want to wear it, but is terrified of her family and in need of help?

Yes. Has it occurred to you that the immigrant Somali girl wants to wear the hijab? I know of more than one at the local high school that ran crying into the bathroom when ignorant American teenage boys started ripping them off their heads.

Yes. Has it occurred to you that the immigrant Somali girl wants to wear the hijab? I know of more than one at the local high school that ran crying into the bathroom when ignorant American teenage boys started ripping them off their heads.

Yeah, it's occurred to me, but you don't know if she's wearing it because she wants to, or she's afraid not to, and while physically grabbing a scarf is wrong, I think that we can both agree that it's not as critical as murder (at least, I hope that we can). And, let's talk about whether she ought to be wearing that hijab in a public school. Unlike a yarmulke, or a cross, a hijab has a specific purpose beyond denoting religious affiliation. It's meant to veil a girl against "the improper gaze of men". It's allegedly a symbol of decency and modesty, but if girls who cover up are “decent” and “modest”, what are girls who don’t? If Muslim girls have to veil themselves against the improper gaze of Muslim men, does that mean non-Muslim girls should fear the gaze of Muslim men?

After all, it's not like there have been waves of rapes of western women by Muslim men who cited it as a religious duty, now is it?

Yeah, it's occurred to me, but you don't know if she's wearing it because she wants to, or she's afraid not to, and while physically grabbing a scarf is wrong, I think that we can both agree that it's not as critical as murder (at least, I hope that we can).

At least it occurred to you before you dismissed it.

And I would not put it on the same scale as murder. More like lifting up a girl's skirt.

And, let's talk about whether she ought to be wearing that hijab in a public school.

Okay. Although I have a feeling you will rationalize your belief that religious freedom should not be extended to Muslims.

Unlike a yarmulke, or a cross, a hijab has a specific purpose beyond denoting religious affiliation. It's meant to veil a girl against "the improper gaze of men". It's allegedly a symbol of decency and modesty, but if girls who cover up are “decent” and “modest”, what are girls who don’t? If Muslim girls have to veil themselves against the improper gaze of Muslim men, does that mean non-Muslim girls should fear the gaze of Muslim men?

After all, it's not like there have been waves of rapes of western women by Muslim men who cited it as a religious duty, now is it?

And I would not put it on the same scale as murder. More like lifting up a girl's skirt.

Then the perps should be punished accordingly.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

Okay. Although I have a feeling you will rationalize your belief that religious freedom should not be extended to Muslims.
Looks like I was correct.

Talk about declaring victory without having won anything. No, you weren't correct. What I have done is ask questions that you find uncomfortable and that you cannot answer, because they are the root of the problem. As I said before, unlike a yarmulke or cross (which are unobtrusive symbols, the Muslim equivalent of which would be a crescent or other icon), the hijab is meant to hide the entire body of a "modest" girl from the improper gaze of Muslim men. Are girls who don't wear the veil (Muslim or non-Muslim) immodest? Do immodest girls have anything to fear from the improper gaze of Muslim men? Should they veil up for their own safety? Well? Got an answer, wiseguy?